THE Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that courts are not bound by parental custody agreements when these do not serve the best interest of the child.
The High Court’s position is contained in a 16-page decision promulgated on February 5, 2025 by the Second Division through Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.
In the decision, the SC granted the petition filed by a father and his parents challenging a Court of Appeals (CA) ruling which affirmed the validity of a compromise agreement between the father and the mother of his child.
It ruled that compromise agreements between parents as to a child’s right is frowned upon by the court.
“A child’s rights are not and should not be dependent solely on the wishes, much less the caprices, of their parents. Their welfare should not be subject to the parents’ say-so or mutual agreement alone,” it said.
“Where, as in this case, the parents are already separated in fact, the courts must step in to determine in whose custody the child can better be assured the rights granted to them by law,” it added.
Records of the case showed that the child moved with his mother to her parent’s home in Cotabato City after his parents separated. He stays with his father during long vacations.
In 2020, the child’s visit to his father was extended due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The father subsequently refused to return the child to his mother even after authorities lifted the restrictions to curb the spread of the virus.
This prompted the child’s mother to file a complaint with the police and a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus with the Family Court in Davao City.
The Davao City court issued the writ and terminated the case. In an order, it also adopted the agreement between the child’s parents that his mother would have his custody by July 2021.
The appellate court affirmed the agreement as a provisional custody arrangement.
The CA ruling did not sit well with the father and his parents, who elevated the case to the SC, arguing that a mere agreement between the parents before the trial court should not determine the issue of a child’s custody.
The SC ruled in favor of the petitioners, stressing that a petition for habeas corpus in custody cases is meant to determine who has rightful custody, not merely to secure a child’s appearance in court.
It added that trial courts must consider the totality of circumstances and grant custody only if the petitioner has a legal right to custody; the child is being kept from them by the other party; and if being with the petitioner is in the best interest of the child.
The SC said the Family Court failed to evaluate these factors, relying solely on the parents’ agreement without conducting a case study or assessing parental fitness. It stressed that courts should not simply approve custody agreements but must ensure that the child’s rights and welfare are protected.
It likewise said that “the Court of Appeals acted contrary to existing rules and jurisprudence when it deemed the terms of the agreement regarding the custody of the minor, as stated in the May 5, 2021 Order (of the Family Court), as constituting a provisional order awarding custody of a minor and, as such, directed the agreement’s immediate implementation.”
The SC further held that the court order failed to comply with Section 13 of the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in relation to the custody of minors.
“Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ July 19, 2023 Resolution, respondent’s petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was filed for the purpose of obtaining custody (of the child), and thus the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in relation to custody of minors specifically applies,” it added.
The SC said the appellate court erred in deeming the compromise terms in the May 5, 2021 order to be a full-fledged provisional order awarding custody of the child to the mother even if the petitioners did not have a chance to file their answers to the respondent’s habeas corpus petition.
With this, the SC ordered a Family Court to hold a trial concerning the custody and the best interest of the child.
It said that “best interest” demands that a proper trial be conducted to determine who should have the rightful custody over a child.
In the meantime, the SC said that until appropriately and finally adjudicated, custody over the child shall remain with his actual custodians, which are the petitioners.
“The case is hereby remanded to the court of origin for proper determination of the party with rightful custody, considering the best interest of the minor, with dispatch,” it said.
Concurring with the decision are Associate Justices Amy Lazaro-Javier, Mario Lopez, Jhosep Lopez, and Antonio Kho Jr.
